Thank you for visiting our NYCFC forum! We invite you to REGISTER and join our growing member base in discussion!
Registered members can join competitions and win monthly prizes.
So what are you waiting for!? Join us!
This is a great MLS community where you can discuss New York City Football Club and other MLS football teams as well as international and other domestic league teams.

Balance is important. Would be best if neither existed. But since one does, the other is needed.

Click to expand...

Relatedly, worth remembering that antifa arose out of the need to defend spaces against being essentially taken over by fascists, without appealing to a higher authority. The impulse is totally healthy and admirable, and not symmetrical, even if some tactics are the same.

Unless I were to hear about specific problems being caused I'm happy to have them.

(Relatedly, one could debate whether having a known antifa presence makes incursions of fascists more or less likely - are they a deterrent or does their presence actually make you more likely to be targeted? But that's an empirical question I'm not prepared to answer.)

Look, that's absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to decry groups who are willing to use violence (though I have a feeling you may not be coming at this from a pacifist bent), but let's examine the threat presented by fascists and anti-fascists.

Fascists desire to use violence to rid their society of and/or oppress: certain racial categories, certain sexual orientations, leftist political/economic policies, people of the "wrong" religion, people of the "wrong" national origin, people of certain genders, etc.

Anti-fascists are willing to use violence to rid their society of and/or oppress: fascists.

You're indulging in a false equivalence. It would be like saying the US Military and ISIS are fundamentally the same because they both employ violence to achieve their ends.

I generally attempt to avoid any kind of political discussion here, so I'm going to try to back away from this. But given that the emergence of the extreme right wing *is* a serious problem right now both domestically and abroad, I will leave you with possibly the most important thing you can read about how to recognize and oppose incipient fascism, by Umberto Eco: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

It's long and flowery, but here some bullet points:

• The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers.
• Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
• Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes.
• Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
•Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
•To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.​

Look, that's absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to decry groups who are willing to use violence (though I have a feeling you may not be coming at this from a pacifist bent), but let's examine the threat presented by fascists and anti-fascists.

Fascists desire to use violence to rid their society of and/or oppress: certain racial categories, certain sexual orientations, leftist political/economic policies, people of the "wrong" religion, people of the "wrong" national origin, people of certain genders, etc.

Anti-fascists are willing to use violence to rid their society of and/or oppress: fascists.

You're indulging in a false equivalence. It would be like saying the US Military and ISIS are fundamentally the same because they both employ violence to achieve their ends.

I generally attempt to avoid any kind of political discussion here, so I'm going to try to back away from this. But given that the emergence of the extreme right wing *is* a serious problem right now both domestically and abroad, I will leave you with possibly the most important thing you can read about how to recognize and oppose incipient fascism, by Umberto Eco: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

It's long and flowery, but here some bullet points:

• The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers.
• Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
• Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes.
• Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
•Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
•To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.​

Click to expand...

No.

Antifa is not okay ever. They are violent idiots who believe in communistic anarchy which that in itself shows how ill-informed they are about political economy. They seek to suppress the free speech of anyone who disagrees with them.

Anti-fascism is okay, because I am pretty sure most everyone is against fascism. That does not mean with violence.

Not really looking to get into a political discussion here as I am sure that me being a centrist makes me one of the farthest right people on this board. But there is a huge difference between Antifa and Anti-fascism even if they claim they are one in the same.

TL;DR: Violence from radical political groups have no place in our society, let alone sport.

Look, that's absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to decry groups who are willing to use violence (though I have a feeling you may not be coming at this from a pacifist bent), but let's examine the threat presented by fascists and anti-fascists.

Fascists desire to use violence to rid their society of and/or oppress: certain racial categories, certain sexual orientations, leftist political/economic policies, people of the "wrong" religion, people of the "wrong" national origin, people of certain genders, etc.

Anti-fascists are willing to use violence to rid their society of and/or oppress: fascists.

You're indulging in a false equivalence. It would be like saying the US Military and ISIS are fundamentally the same because they both employ violence to achieve their ends.

I generally attempt to avoid any kind of political discussion here, so I'm going to try to back away from this. But given that the emergence of the extreme right wing *is* a serious problem right now both domestically and abroad, I will leave you with possibly the most important thing you can read about how to recognize and oppose incipient fascism, by Umberto Eco: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

It's long and flowery, but here some bullet points:

• The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers.
• Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
• Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes.
• Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
•Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
•To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.​

Click to expand...

This is so historically inaccurate, I don't even know where to start. Fascism was started by a socialist (Mussolini) who felt it would not succeed without nationalism. Hence he left the socialist party in Italy (while still editor of the largest socialist publication in Italy at the time) to combine his agenda of greater national unification and socialist economics. The leading Socialist in Italy at the time were largely disinterested in Italian nationalism.
The xenophobia, racism, etc was the result of Hitler who exploited fascist economics and nationalism for his own purposes. Hence the Nazi party was the National Socialist party- nothing right wing about it.

Stalin initially supported Italian fascism and then did an about face once prominent fascists started to claim to be more radical than socialists. He started to brand fascists as right wing to stop the flow of socialists to the fascist party.

Bottom line- calling fascism "right wing" is not even remotely accurate particularly in reference to the American right which does NOT support corporatism, state capitalism or xenophobia/ racism or anything else of the kind. Racism/xenophobia, etc among members the right or the left (and it exists on both sides) in this country is more so he result of a person's ignorance rather than their politics. And people on the political right in the US, no matter how much you or I may disagree with much of their agenda, oppose fascism as we do. Fascism and Antifa are both totalitarian, violent sects that hate people which don't belong to their "kind (however they define it)."

And regardless of anyone's politics, I think we can all agree racism/xenophobia, etc is abhorrent and unwelcome in our club.

Now that I have broken my own rule of "no politics" here, I'm prepared to do my penance.

I too would not like to see the stadium become a venue for people to act out their political differences, and especially not with violence.

However, I also think it is unacceptable to have Nazis displaying their ideology in the stands, even if they aren't physically harassing anybody. And even if, as is often the case today, they have to camouflage it to an extent where most people might not be aware what they're seeing.

To the extent these values might come in conflict, I value the second one.

This is so historically inaccurate, I don't even know where to start. Fascism was started by a socialist (Mussolini) who felt it would not succeed without nationalism. Hence he left the socialist party in Italy (while still editor of the largest socialist publication in Italy at the time) to combine his agenda of greater national unification and socialist economics. The leading Socialist in Italy at the time were largely disinterested in Italian nationalism.
The xenophobia, racism, etc was the result of Hitler who exploited fascist economics and nationalism for his own purposes. Hence the Nazi party was the National Socialist party- nothing right wing about it.

Stalin initially supported Italian fascism and then did an about face once prominent fascists started to claim to be more radical than socialists. He started to brand fascists as right wing to stop the flow of socialists to the fascist party.

Bottom line- calling fascism "right wing" is not even remotely accurate particularly in reference to the American right which does NOT support corporatism, state capitalism or xenophobia/ racism or anything else of the kind. Racism/xenophobia, etc among members the right or the left (and it exists on both sides) in this country is more so he result of a person's ignorance rather than their politics. And people on the political right in the US, no matter how much you or I may disagree with much of their agenda, oppose fascism as we do. Fascism and Antifa are both totalitarian, violent sects that hate people which don't belong to their "kind (however they define it)."

And regardless of anyone's politics, I think we can all agree racism/xenophobia, etc is abhorrent and unwelcome in our club.

Now that I have broken my own rule of "no politics" here, I'm prepared to do my penance.

Click to expand...

I don't really feel like going through an effort to lecture you. The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is neither a Democracy or a Republic. To call Hitler a socialist is because socialism is the name of his party is laughable.

This club has a history of fascists infiltrating the supporter section year 1 and continuing at away matches. I applaud anyone that would keep them out of the stadium. SGs need to police their own sections.

I don't really feel like going through an effort to lecture you. The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is neither a Democracy or a Republic. To call Hitler a socialist is because socialism is the name of his party is laughable.

This club has a history of fascists infiltrating the supporter section year 1 and continuing at away matches. I applaud anyone that would keep them out of the stadium. SGs need to police their own sections.

Click to expand...

The history of it is... well what it is... semantics aside. Bottom line- fascism was an outgrowth of socialism so you can't call it "right wing."

And I support keeping all intolerant violent groups out of the stadium... not just those whose politics I dislike.

The history of it is... well what it is... semantics aside. Bottom line- fascism was an outgrowth of socialism so you can't call it "right wing."

And I support keeping all intolerant violent groups out of the stadium... not just those whose politics I dislike.

Click to expand...

That's not really relevant to discussing what fascism means today. You can point to Mussolini and call him a socialist all you want, but the ideology and the policies of Mussolini are totally different than what a neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist believes today. Go tell them that you they believe in the state control of the means of production and that they are a left wing socialist and tell me how that works out for you

I would also hope you disagree with the politics of all intolerant violent groups.

It was not and I would hope that you dislike the politics of all intolerant violent groups.

Click to expand...

As I said in my previous comment (which you apparently didn't read), I dislike all intolerant violent groups. That includes Antifa which some people here seem to be comfortable allowing in the stadium because their politics are not "right wing." That's a slippery slope that makes it easy for other people to justify allowing other violent groups in the stadium because they share their political views.

As for the history of fascism, you may be uncomfortable with it but facts are stubborn things. Mussolini started it and mussolini was socialist. Your point about hitler is absolutely correct but also not relevant (my fault - my comment about him wasn't particualrly clear and open to misinterpretation). That doesn't mean socialists support fascism any more than any "right wing" person would support all groups or people on the right wing. It's just not that simple.

Coming full circle, this is why I'be said discussing politics in the context of this forum is problematic. Too many people here are making sweeping generalizations that are inappropriately inclusive of people or misrepresent their views. The minute you introduce words like "right-wing" into the conversation about fascism you are lumping in a whole lot of people that you shouldn't.

And saying that one violent group should be tolerated because they aren't "right wing" is absurd. You want to fight the fascists? I'll lead the charge with you. But not in our damn stadium.

That's not really relevant to discussing what fascism means today. You can point to Mussolini and call him a socialist all you want, but the ideology and the policies of Mussolini are totally different than what a neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist believes today. Go tell them that you they believe in the state control of the means of production and that they are a left wing socialist and tell me how that works out for you

I would also hope you disagree with the politics of all intolerant violent groups

Click to expand...

Is agree with you... to a point. They are not socialists. But my point about calling fascism "right wing" stands. Whatever it is, it's not right wing (at least not on the American political spectrum) despite how they or others want to label them. And reducing fascist to "right wing", you're lumping in a lot of people into a group they don't belong to.

once you justify antifa's presence under the umbrella of opposing the "right wing," you are justifying violence against people on the right that are not fascists. And/or you are acquiescing to people on the right accepting violent groups that share their own views. The logic goes both ways - "they should be accepted because I agree them and I am good/right. " That may not be what you intend but that is the slippery slope.

There are members of this forum, myself included, who you would seem to support being physically assualted because they are "right wing" despite the fact that I and they HATE fascism (and trump. not relevant but just saying to make a point). I have zero in common with fascists and find them morally and intellectually offensive. But hey, I'm right wing... so fuck me, right?

That's the message you and some other are sending. If I and others aren't welcome to be a part of this group because we don't share your political philosophy, just say so and I'll move on.

While we're at it, is there a political litmus test for TR, HOA or any other supporter groups?